Paper #2 [Rhetorical Analysis Assignment (1)] (4 full pp. double-spaced)
Sicko Analysis
In 2007 documentary Sicko Michael Moore addresses the issue of America’s health care system. This topic has been in continuous debate among our political leaders for many years now. Michael Moore believes America’s health system is morally corrupt which is unreasonable for being the wealthiest country in the world. In many instances throughout the film, he argues the fact that the American health care system is subject to fraudulent decisions, aiming towards governmental funds, rather than the rights of American citizens. Furthermore, he compares health care conditions from around the world, arguing that countries with this benefit are much better off than those that are not. This movie is an attempt to encourage middle class individuals to stand up for what Moore thinks of their Constitutional right, health care.
In the movie Moore uses different techniques to support his argument that universal health care is better than government regulated health care. One of which was to interview individuals around the United States about their health insurance experiences. One of the most memorable stories came from a mother whose four-year-old daughter died because she was refused care at a hospital. The way Moore sets up this particular interview is unforgettable. As she begins telling her chilling account, the camera zooms into her face. When the camera zooms out, we see that behind her is a playground full of children. As the woman begins to break down and cry, we realize she is flipping through the pages of a photo album dedicated to the memory of her lost daughter. As you can see Moore uses an immense amount of pathos in his interview causing the audience to question if this could ever happen to any of their loved ones, a brother? Sister? Spouse?That if the government and insurance companies can refuse a mother and her sick baby treatment then you know something is wrong. This makes the audience want to have universal health, just so they can help other individuals who are stuck in the same situation. He uses the same method when interviewing others in the movie. What would have happened if Moore did not use pathos? His argument would not have been as effective as it is; the audience would not be emotionally affected by the mother’s situation and would not want to do something about it.
Moore keeps himself from being somewhat biased by interviewing people with health insurance in addition to people without it. He shows that even though these individuals have insurance they do not receive the sufficient health care that they need because they have been denied care by the major health care companies. One story is of a twenty three year old lady with cervical cancer who was denied care because “too young to have cervical cancer”. She ended up going to Canada to get treated illegally. Moore uses this example to appease to another audience. In this way he uses ethos and pathos to support his argument. Additionally, this indicates that people are in desperate need of health care and are willing to go the extreme of becoming an illegal citizen.
Wanting to see what was so great about other countries health care that American citizens went to get treated illegally Moore went to Canada, France, and Britain, all three of which are countries that have universal health care. He asked around about the quality of care citizens received and how much it cost them. In Canada Moore interviewed individuals where he found out how they felt about paying for others health care through tax dollars. “Michael Moore: I’m wondering why you expect your fellow Canadians, who don’t have your problem, why should they, through their tax dollars, have to pay for a problem you have Canadian: Because we would do the same for them. It’s just the way it’s always been, and so we hope it’ll always be. Michael Moore: Right. But if you just had to pay for your problem, and don’t pay for everybody else’s problem, just take care of yourself. Canadian: Well, there are lots of people who aren’t in a position to be able to do that. And somebody has to look out for them.” (Sicko) People are willing to pay for another’s health care through taxes because either way they still receive ideal care. Moore’s argument here shows us that universal health is a bit expensive but it is worth it because everyone receives ideal care. It is up to the U.S citizens to determine if they want universal health care. This is because they will be paying for another’s health care along with their own. Michael now moves on to another country To see how universal health care will affect the income and standard of living of government paid doctors, since he has already established the fact that people believe it is necessary to help their fellow citizens.
When in Britain Moore interviewed a general practitioner who works for the government about how much he got paid and how his standard of living was. Moore suspected he received a low income salary and had to take a public transportation however that was not the case. “Michael Moore: ...so, working for the government, you probably have to use public transportation?British Doctor: No, so, I have a car that I use...Michael Moore: An old beater?[cut to a frontal close take of the Doctor's HOT Audi parking] “(Sicko) Moore uses ethos and pathos here again, the fact that the government paid doctor drives an amazing car and also lives in a million dollar home makes the audience feel somewhat jealous, it plants the seed in their mind that if he can earn that much money with the help of universal health care then the switch should be worth it. Moore uses ethos because he interviews the general practitioner himself, he receives all his information from someone who understands the system. Moore’s argument shows us that universal health care provides doctors the same or even more salary than they do with government regulated health care.
Later on in the movie Moore moved onto France, where he found out how people lived with high taxes. There Moore spent some time with an upper middle class French couple, which challenged one of the strongest arguments against universal Healthcare. Why did Moore choose to interview what Americans consider an upper middle class couple instead of a lower class couple. If higher taxes would not do any damage on their incomes then why would Moore choose a high society couple? Moore’s argument may have been more substantial if he interviewed a lower class family. A lower class family is typically struggling in America, living paycheck to paycheck. Had he chosen this class of society and shown that even they can live comfortably despite the higher taxes, his argument would have been irrefutable.
Coming back to the states Moore tracked down a few of America’s heroes: firefighters, police officers and the brave volunteers that took their time to help others in the catastrophic event of 9-11. After interviewing them he found out that these heroes, that the government was so pleased with, were not being treated as they should be. Our heroes were being denied health care, the relentless coughing and pain in the chest that started after 9-11 were thought to have nothing to do with the event. Insurance companies refused to pay for their treatment and left them to their pain. If this is how America treats their “so called” heroes, then just think of how they would treat their regular citizens?
After watching the movie Sicko and analyzing Michael Moore’s arguments I can confidently say that I agree with all of his arguments. The United States should have a universal health care system rather than a government regulated one. This is because America’s health care system is corrupted and is not willing to help any of our citizens.